Chapter LXXIX.—Of the Concord Between Matthew, Mark, and John in Their Notices of the Supper at Bethany, at Which the Woman Poured the Precious Ointment on the Lord, and of the Method in Which These Accounts are to Be Harmonized with that of Luke, When He Records an Incident of a Similar Nature at a Different Period.

154. Matthew, then, continuing his narrative from the point up to which we had concluded its examination, proceeds in the following terms: “Then assembled together the chief priests and the elders of the people unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty and kill Him: but they said, Not on the feast-day, lest there be an uproar among the people. Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, there came unto Him a woman having an alabaster box of precious ointment, and poured it on His head as He sat at meat;” and so on down to the words, “there shall also this that this woman hath done be told for a memorial of her.”712    Matt. xxvi. 3–13. The scene with the woman and the costly ointment at Bethany we have now to consider, as it is thus detailed. For although Luke records an incident resembling this, and although the name which he assigns to the person in whose house the Lord was supping might also suggest an identity between the two narratives (for Luke likewise names the host “Simon”), still, since there is nothing either in nature or in the customs of men to make the case an incredible one, that as one man may have two names, two men may with all the greater likelihood have one and the same name, it is more reasonable to believe that the Simon in whose house [it is thus supposed, according to Luke’s version, that] this scene at Bethany took place, was a different person from the Simon [named by Matthew]. For Luke, again, does not specify Bethany as the place where the incident which he records happened. And although it is true that he in no way particularizes the town or village in which that occurrence took place, still his narrative does not seem to deal with the same locality. Consequently, my opinion is, that there is but one interpretation to be put upon the matter. That is not, however, to suppose that the woman who appears in Matthew was an entirely different person from the woman who approached the feet of Jesus on that occasion in the character of a sinner, and kissed them, and washed them with her tears, and wiped them with her hair, and anointed them with ointment, in reference to whose case Jesus also made use of the parable of the two debtors, and said that her sins, which were many, were forgiven her because she loved much. But my theory is, that it was the same Mary who did this deed on two separate occasions, the one being that which Luke has put on record, when she approached Him first of all in that remarkable humility, and with those tears, and obtained the forgiveness of her sins.713    Luke vii. 36–50. [This identification of Mary of Bethany with the woman spoken of by Luke is part of the process by which the latter is assumed to be Mary Magdalene. The occasions were different, and it is far more likely that there were two women, neither of them Mary Magdalene.—R.] For John, too, although he has not given the kind of recital which Luke has left us of the circumstances connected with that incident, has at least mentioned the fact, in commending the same Mary to our notice, when he has just begun to tell the story of the raising of Lazarus, and before his narrative brings the Lord to Bethany itself. The history which he offers us of that transaction proceeds thus: “Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary, and her sister Martha. It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.”714    John xi. 1, 2. [John’s language is more properly referred to what was well known among Christians when he wrote, than to what had occurred before the sickness of Lazarus.—R.] By this statement John attests what Luke has told us when he records a scene of this nature in the house of a certain Pharisee, whose name was Simon. Here, then, we see that Mary had acted in this way before that time. And what she did a second time in Bethany is a different matter, which does not belong to Luke’s narrative, but is related by three of the evangelists in concert, namely, John, Matthew, and Mark.715    John xii. 1–8; Matt. xxvi. 3–13; Mark xiv. 3–9.

155. Let us therefore notice how harmony is maintained here between these three evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and John, regarding whom there is no doubt that they record the self-same occurrence at Bethany, on occasion of which the disciples also, as all three mention, murmured against the woman, ostensibly on the ground of the waste of the very precious ointment. Now the further fact that Matthew and Mark tell us that it was the Lord’s head on which the ointment was poured, while John says it was His feet, can be shown to involve no contradiction, if we apply the principle which we have already expounded in dealing with the scene of the feeding of the multitudes with the five loaves. For as there was one writer who, in giving his account of that incident, did not fail to specify that the people sat down at once by fifties and by hundreds, although another spoke only of the fifties, no contradiction could be supposed to emerge. There might indeed have seemed to be some difficulty, if the one evangelist had referred only to the hundreds, and the other only to the fifties; and yet, even in that case, the correct finding should have been to the effect that they were seated both by fifties and by hundreds. And this example ought to have made it plain to us, as I pressed it upon my readers in discussing that section, that even where the several evangelists introduce only the one fact each, we should take the case to have been really, that both things were elements in the actual occurrence.716    See above, chap. xlvi. § 98. In the same way, our conclusion with regard to the passage now before us should be, that the woman poured the ointment not only upon the Lord’s head, but also on His feet. It is true that some person may possibly be found absurd and artful enough to argue, that because Mark states that the ointment was poured out only after the alabaster vase was broken there could not have remained in the shattered vessel anything with which she could anoint His feet. But while a person of that character, in his endeavours to disprove the veracity of the Gospel, may contend that the vase was broken, in a manner making it impossible that any portion of the contents could have been left in it, how much better and more accordant with piety must the position of a very different individual appear, whose aim will be to uphold the truthfulness of the Gospel, and who may therefore contend that the vessel was not broken in a manner involving the total outpouring of the ointment! Moreover, if that calumniator is so persistently blinded as to attempt to shatter the harmony of the evangelists on this subject of the shattering of the vase,717    De alabastro fracto frangere conetur. he should rather accept the alternative, that the [Lord’s] feet were anointed before the vessel itself was broken, and that it thus remained whole, and filled with ointment sufficient for the anointing also of the head, when, by the breakage referred to, the entire contents were discharged. For we allow that there is a due regard to the several parts of our nature when the act commences with the head, but [we may also say that] an equally natural order is preserved when we ascend from the feet to the head.

156. The other matters belonging to this incident do not seem to me to raise any question really involving a difficulty. There is the circumstance that the other evangelists mention how the disciples murmured about the [wasteful] outpouring of the precious ointment, whereas John states that Judas was the person who thus expressed himself, and tells us, in explanation of the fact, that “he was a thief.” But I think it is evident that this same Judas was the person referred to under the [general] name of the disciples, the plural number being used here instead of the singular, in accordance with that mode of speech of which we have already introduced an explanation in the case of Philip and the miracle of the five loaves.718    See above, § 96. It may also be understood in this way, that the other disciples either felt as Judas felt, or spoke as he did, or were brought over to that view of the matter by what Judas said, and that Matthew and Mark consequently have expressed in word what was really the mind of the whole company; but that Judas spoke as he did just because he was a thief, whereas what prompted the rest was their care for the poor; and further, that John has chosen to record the utterance of such sentiments only in the instance of that one [among the disciples] whose habit of acting the thief he believed it right to bring out in connection with this occasion.

CAPUT LXXIX. De coena in Bethania ubi mulier unguento pretioso Dominum perfudit, quomodo inter se congruant Matthaeus, Marcus et Joannes, et quomodo Lucae non adversentur tale aliquid alio tempore commemoranti.

154. Sequitur ergo Matthaeus ab eo loco, ubi finem feceramus considerandae narrationis, et dicit: Tunc congregati sunt principes sacerdotum et seniores populi in atrium principis sacerdotum, qui dicebatur Caiphas, et consilium fecerunt ut Jesum dolo tenerent, et occiderent. Dicebant autem, Non in die festo; ne forte tumultus fieret in populo. Cum autem esset Jesus in Bethania, in domo Simonis leprosi, accessit ad eum mulier habens alabastrum unguenti pretiosi, et effudit super caput ipsius recumbentis, etc., usque ad illud ubi ait, Dicetur et quod haec fecit in memoriam ejus (Matth. XXVI, 3-13). Nunc jam de muliere atque unguento pretioso quod in Bethania gestum est, consideremus. Lucas enim quamvis simile factum commemoret, nomenque conveniat ejus, apud quem convivabatur Dominus; nam et ipsum Simonem dicit: tamen quia non est contra naturam vel contra morem hominum, ut si potest unus homo habere nomina duo, multo magis possint et unum nomen habere homines duo; potius credibile est alium fuisse illum Simonem non leprosum, in cujus domo hoc in Bethania gerebatur. Nam nec Lucas in Bethania rem gestam dicit, quam narrat: et quamvis non commemoret civitatem aut castellum, ubi factum sit; tamen non videtur in eodem loco versari ejus narratio. Nihil itaque aliud intelligendum arbitror, nisi non quidem aliam fuisse mulierem, quae peccatrix tunc accessit ad pedes Jesu, et osculata est, et lavit lacrymis, et tersit capillis, et unxit unguento; cui Dominus adhibita similitudine de duobus debitoribus, ait dimissa esse peccata multa, quoniam dilexit multum: sed eamdem Mariam bis hoc fecisse, semel scilicet quod Lucas narravit, cum primo accedens cum illa humilitate et lacrymis meruit peccatorum remissionem (Luc. VII, 36-50). Nam hoc et Joannes, quamvis non sicut Lucas quemadmodum factum esset narraverit, tamen ipsam Mariam commendans commemoravit, 1155 cum jam de Lazaro resuscitando coepisset loqui, antequam veniret in Bethaniam. Quod ita ibi narrat: Erat autem quidam, inquit, languens Lazarus a Bethania de castello Mariae et Marthae sororis ejus. Maria autem erat quae unxit Dominum unguento, et extersit pedes ejus capillis suis, cujus frater Lazarus infirmabatur (Joan. XI, 1, 2). Hoc dicens Joannes attestatur Lucae, qui hoc in domo pharisaei cujusdam Simonis factum esse narravit. Jam itaque hoc Maria fecerat. Quod autem in Bethania rursus fecit, aliud est, quod ad Lucae narrationem non pertinet, sed pariter narratur a tribus, Joanne scilicet (Id. XII, 1-8), Matthaeo et Marco (Marc. XIV, 3-9).

155. Inter istos igitur tres, Matthaeum, Marcum et Joannem, quemadmodum hoc conveniat attendamus, de quibus non est dubium quod eamdem rem narrent gestam in Bethania, ubi etiam discipuli, quod omnes tres commemorant, murmuraverunt adversus mulierem tanquam de perditione pretiosissimi unguenti. Quod ergo Matthaeus et Marcus caput Domini unguento illo perfusum dicunt, Joannes autem pedes, regula illa ostenditur non esse contrarium, quam demonstravimus, cum de quinque panibus pasceret turbas. Ibi enim quia non defuit qui et quinquagenos, et centenos discubuisse commemoraret, cum alius quinquagenos dixerit, non potuit videri contrarium: potuisset autem si alius centenos tantum posuisset, sicut alius quinquagenos, et tamen debuit inveniri utrumque factum esse. Quo exemplo informari nos oportuit, sicut illic admonui, etiam ubi singuli Evangelistae singula commemorant, utrumque factum intelligere (Supra, cap. 46, n. 98). Proinde et hic non solum caput, sed et pedes Domini accipiamus perfudisse mulierem. Nisi forte quoniam Marcus fracto alabastro perfusum caput commemorat, tam quisquam absurdus et calumniosus est, ut aliquid in vase fracto neget remanere potuisse, unde etiam pedes perfunderet. Sed cum iste contenderit sic esse fractum, ut nihil ibi residui fieret, nitens adversus veritatem Evangelii; quanto melius et religiosius contendit alius non esse ita fractum, ut totum effunderet, nitens pro veritate Evangelii? Ille autem calumniator si tam pertinaciter caecus est, ut Evangelistarum concordiam de alabastro fracto frangere conetur, prius accipiat perfusos pedes antequam illud fractum esset, ut in integro remaneret, unde etiam caput perfunderetur, ubi fractura illa totum effunderet. A capite quippe nobis ordinate consuli agnoscimus, sed ordinate etiam nos a pedibus ad caput ascendimus.

156. Caetera facti hujus nullam mihi videntur habere quaestionem. Quod enim alii dicunt discipulos murmurasse de unguenti effusione pretiosi, Joannes autem Judam commemorat, et ideo quia fur erat; manifestum puto esse discipulorum nomine eumdem Judam significatum, locutione illa quam de Philippo in quinque panibus insinuavimus, plurali numero pro singulari usurpato (Ibid., n. 96). Potest etiam intelligi quod et alii discipuli aut senserint hoc, aut dixerint, aut eis Juda dicente persuasum sit, atque omnium 1156 voluntatem Matthaeus et Marcus etiam verbis expresserint; sed Judas propterea dixerit, quia fur erat, caeteri vero propter pauperum curam; Joannem autem de solo illo id commemorare voluisse, cujus ex hac occasione furandi consuetudinem credidit intimandam.